Newsbrief 101 What are City Council Candidates saying about the South Lancaster Growth Catalyst?

Newsbrief 101 17 April 2023 Lancaster City Council Elections

The election for Lancaster City Council takes place on 4 May 2023 - do be sure to have photo ID to vote in this election the law has changed. You need valid photo driving licence or passport or to apply for photo ID by 5.00pm 25 April 2023

As part of our ongoing campaign we have been contacting candidates for the May election for Ellel, University, Scotforth East and Scotforth West wards for their opinions on the South Lancaster Growth Catalyst. It has been difficult to get contact details for all candidates - we are still trying and will update as the outstanding responses come in. If you can put us in touch with any of those candidates who haven’t responded do please let us know.

We have asked candidates for a 150 word statement in answer to the following question:

What are your views of the financial and environmental risks associated with the development plans for South Lancaster and the 9185 houses linked to the £140m Housing Infrastructure Fund agreement signed by Lancaster City Council in autumn 2021?

Here are the statements ward by ward and in alphabetical order of the candidates' names:

Ellel Ward

AUSTEN-BAKER Richard Lindsay Peregrine St. John, (Conservative)

I’m against the HIF because: (1) the scale of housing is unsustainable – and more recent announcements about this development for 30,000 residents, with only one convenience store, no pub, and no solution to congestion at the Pointer Roundabout, haven’t changed my mind; (2) the figure of 9,000 houses is not based on projected demand – it was arrived at by dividing the £90 million local contribution by an average developer contribution of £10,000 per house; (3) it would distort housing in Lancaster for decades – people in Morecambe and north of the river in Lancaster belong to communities and want homes there, not on the other side of the district; (4) greenfield development here will undermine efforts at regenerating brownfield sites; and (5) the expectation of collecting £90 million is based on absurdly optimistic assumptions about land and building costs, which will leave council tax-payers with a horrible bill.

CORKERRY Shaun Stephen and HOPKINS Anna Winifred , (Labour)

Lancaster faces a housing shortage. People are desperate for suitable housing. While brownfield developments in Canal Quarter, the former Skerton school site, part of Frontierland (for existing West End residents displaced by rising prices) and other sites should be prioritised for housing first, this is not enough. We need more housing for local people.

By developing the Lancaster South plans in consultation with residents, the City Council will have more control over the development and will be in a stronger position to ensure that it is on an appropriate scale, with facilities, infrastructure and flood protection built in.

Financial risks are minimal as the agreement between the City and County Councils cap the City’s potential financial exposure.

If we allow houses built at the whim of predatory developers, without the high quality, environmental and affordability standards we demand, or the facilities to support local people, the environmental outcomes will be worse.

FILDES Robert Alan (Lib Dem)

When first asked this question as a LibDem candidate I argued there was little or no justification in term of housing need or economic regeneration. The likely negative effects have been all too clear: degraded local services such as schools and health, and increased traffic and incurring major financial risk. Nothing since has changed for the better. Ad hoc opportunistic housing developments keep emerging that don’t fit with any thought-out scheme. The proposed upgraded motorway junction is mired in confusion and the consultation exercise of the people most affected, the people of Ellel, is undemocratic and unresponsive to local concerns. As a Liberal Democrat committed to community involvement and environmental protection, the development should be rethought and downscaled. Yes, we do need more affordable housing but not at such a high cost.

MADDOCKS Sally Ann Shelley (Green)

I oppose the plans for the Housing Infrastructure Funding for £140m for South Lancaster road infrastructure, linked to 9185 houses. This figure was created to make the business case for the funding. Consultation and communication around it was inadequate and opaque, leaving little trust among residents in the process.

I believe that this proposal should be re- assessed because of

significant changes: ecological and climate emergency pressures, increased

costs, a smaller increase in Lancaster population than predicted, flooding risks and damage to community well being and sustainability.There has been a recent consultation on the new road route. It now looks like a road without purpose and differs significantly from the original scheme, this change needs justifying.

Concern about the credibility and viability of the costs behind

the proposals remains. I will continue to vigorously question the County and City Council , pushing for transparency and clarity on viability.

PARK Jason John (Conservative)

The BGV plans will add a town the size of Kendal to the south of Lancaster. I am against these 9000 houses for so many reasons: traffic, flooding, social and environmental impact, huge cost burden to the taxpayer and the inevitable change to the character and identity of our area. However, more housing is required, especially as we look to the future.

The lack of transparency associated with BGV and the increase from 3500 to 9000 houses concerns me greatly. We keep hearing the term ‘Aspirational ‘ but less is said about the financial, social and environmental impacts. In reality costs will escalate and badly needed, supporting infrastructure will not be built. I would like to see a realistic, revised scheme, which puts brownfield development and regeneration at its heart; less swallowing of greenfield areas. We should be improving and enhancing what we already have in and around Lancaster.

TYNAN Paul Francis (Green) My views and those of the peoples of Ellel that i have spoken to during this election campaign are that there is genuine concern about the extra car traffic this would produce and the associated air and noise pollution. There is concern that the development plans will result in a commuter dormitory town for people travelling to work further south and not actually serve Lancaster and Galgate. I am concerned about ribbon development from Lancaster to Galgate. Inflation and the change of route make the whole project a huge financial risk. This financial risk will inevitably put pressure on the scheme to cut corners and not complete the support infrastructure that such a scheme would need. Lancaster needs affordable homes near to the town centre such as the canal quarter not large homes several miles away. There is also concern about the extra flood risk such a scheme would produce University Ward CROSS Thomas Edward (Lib Dem) Statement outstanding EVANS Cormac McVeigh (Lib Dem) Statement outstanding Fish, TOM and METCALF-RIENER Isabella Caitlin (Green) The Green Party are committed to taking serious action to combat the climate emergency and as such we oppose the development plans for South Lancaster, which will increase flood risk, car-dependence and air pollution in a community that is already an Air Quality Management Area. The plans are also in direct conflict with the City Council’s commitment to be net-zero carbon by 2030 after unanimously declaring a climate emergency in 2019, not to mention the funding deficit of £100 million for the project. Plans for new housing in Lancaster must meet local people’s needs for affordable homes within walking and cycling distance of the city centre rather than creating a new car-dependent town. As a city councillor for the University ward, I will continue to oppose the South Lancaster Development on the grounds of its environmentally disastrous impact and the associated burden on local communities, particularly young people. HALL Erin Christina (Labour and Co-operative Party) Statement outstanding HASSAN Bawan Arkan (Conservative) Statement outstanding HELMY Khai (Conservative) Statement outstanding HURST Lewis Vines (Labour and Co-operative PartyStatement outstanding Scotforth East Ward HOGGARTH Stephanie Ann (Conservative) Statement outstanding LONG Robin Eamonn (Lib Dem) Statement outstanding MADDOCKS Sophie Louise ( Labour and Co-operative Party) statement outstanding QUINN Georges Benjamin (Conservative) statement outstanding MILLS Nancy Lola and ROBERTSON Caroline Nancy (Green) As candidates in the Scotforth East ward, we strongly oppose the South Lancaster Development plans. The proposed project is in direct conflict with the City Council's unanimous declaration of a climate emergency in 2019 and its pledge to achieve net-zero carbon by 2030. The development plans would increase in flood risks, air pollution, and car-dependency in a community that already struggles with these issues. The project also faces a funding deficit of £100 million. Rather than a new car-dependent town, housing developments in Lancaster must prioritize affordable homes that are easily accessible by bus, foot or bike from the city centre The Green Party takes climate emergency seriously, and we cannot support the proposed plans for South Lancaster. Our focus is to ensure that any new developments in the area prioritize the needs of local people and contribute to a sustainable future especially for young people without burdening existing communities. WOOD Jason (Labour and Co-operative Party) Lancaster faces a housing shortage. People are desperate for suitable housing. While brownfield developments in Canal Quarter, the former Skerton school site, part of Frontierland (for existing West End residents displaced by rising prices) and other sites should be prioritised for housing first, this is not enough. We need more housing for local people. By developing the Lancaster South plans in consultation with residents, City Council will have more control over the development and will be in a stronger position to ensure that it’s on an appropriate scale, with facilities, infrastructure and flood protection built in. Financial risks are minimal as the agreement between the City and County Councils cap the City’s potential financial exposure. If we allow houses built at the whim of predatory developers, without the high quality, environmental and affordability standards we demand, or the facilities to support local people, the environmental outcomes will be worse. Scotforth West Ward ASKARI Sayeda Fabiha Hassan (Labour) Whilst the lack of suitable housing is a cause of great concern nationally, it has become an increasingly evident issue locally too. In regards to the development in South Lancaster, the most significant cause of concern for me is its environmental impact. In order to balance the requirement of new and sustainable housing with the seriousness of the environmental risks involved, I believe that it is the duty of the City Council to ensure that most - if not all - new houses are built to Passivhaus status. Furthermore, the £140m Housing Infrastructure Fund agreement provides funding for a Cycle Superhighway and a Bus Rapid Transport system for Lancaster (through the County Council). I believe this provides our city a fantastic opportunity for sustainable growth and, on balance, is something I support if developed with thorough sensitivity and consideration of all social, financial and environmental risks involved. DEXTER Leon Theodore (Conservative) statement outstanding HAMILTON-COX, Tim and Mills, Abi (Green) Environmental risks of South Lancaster Growth Catalyst (SLGC) include (but are not limited to) impact on the Conder flood plain and consequent downstream flood risk; and on the biological heritage sites, ie the ancient woodlands north of Galgate (unchanged in extent since at least 1844) and the Lancaster canal. The financial risk arises from the gap between government's HIF contribution of £140m and the actual costs of the roads, services, transport and social infrastructure. The gap started at £98m and has escalated considerably with rising construction costs. In order to prioritise funding of the construction of the Galgate bypass at the expense of other SLGC infrastructure, it is clear that County has breached the Collaboration Agreement. The breaches will ultimately have to be considered by Lancaster city councillors. In view of the risks, if elected Abi and Tim will vote against approval and seek to trigger the demise of SLGC. HAYES Harvey George (Conservative) statement outstanding MARTIN Malcolm Allan (Lib Dem) As I understand it, the development plans for South Lancaster and the 9185 houses are largely a fait accompli. But New Towns are conceived at Westminster. I have lived in a New Town. I don’t recommend it. Unfortunately, the financial and environmental risks are not matters that I have studied or feel competent to comment upon. The Lib Dems won at Chesham and Amersham because they opposed planning reforms that would give too much power to developers. Lib Dems want to see power given back to communities so that they can create the housing their localities need. Labour and the Tories have their hands tied by whips. Lib Dem councillors are free to listen to their local community. Being free locally from national dogma, they are the natural repository for CLOUD members’ votes. MILLER Davina Anne (Labour) statement outstanding We fully respect the right of all CLOUD members to decide for themselves how to vote in these elections, but hope that these candidate statements are useful and informative. CLOUD Management Committee